issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 203 (2011) 20.10.

2011

Prison authorities had taken all necessary measures to protect inmate

In todays Chamber judgment in the case Stasi v. France (application no. 25001/07), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been: no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights The case concerned the measures taken by prison authorities following ill-treatment of an inmate.

Principal facts
The applicant, Vincent Stasi, is a French national who was born in 1955 and lives in Lyons (France). In two separate sets of proceedings Mr Stasi was charged with fraud, theft, use of a forged cheque, embezzlement and forgery, and twice reminded in custody, the first time in the Saint Paul remand prison in Lyons then in Villefranche-sur-Sane Prison, and the second time in Villefranche-sur-Sane Prison. He was convicted as charged and sentenced successively to two and three years imprisonment, including a suspended term of eighteen months. He served the second sentence immediately following the first, remaining in Villefranche-sur-Sane Prison throughout. On his arrival in Villefranche-sur-Sane Prison for the second time, on 27 July 2006, Mr Stasi reported that he had been the victim of acts of rape during his previous period of detention. He was thus placed alone in a cell on a corridor of the prison reserved for vulnerable prisoners. He remained alone in the cell except for the period 26 February 2007 to 18 March 2007, when he had to share with another prisoner: Monsieur P (M.P). The applicant stated that he had been ill-treated by M. P. because of his homosexuality, while they were sharing the cell. According to him, he was forced to wear a pink star, was beaten, burned, deprived of food and prevented from leaving his cell so as not to reveal his injuries. A medical certificate issued three weeks later by the prison doctor attested to significant bruising. On 9 July 2007 Mr Stasi said that he wanted to commit suicide. He was seen by the building supervisor, a doctor and a psychiatrist, and was placed until 26 July 2007 on suicide watch.
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

During his imprisonment Mr Stasi was the victim of other acts, and medical certificates were issued attesting to bruising. On 6 November 2007 he was pushed down the stairs by an unidentified inmate and injured his right leg. On 31 January 2008 a prisoner stubbed a cigarette under his left eye. In August 2008 another inmate assaulted him in the shower. In August 2008 the applicant was informed that he had to change floor because of the introduction of a special regime for prisoners sentenced to less than eighteen months. He went on a hunger strike in protest. After refusing the first transfer he agreed to the second and stopped his hunger strike on 15 September 2008. Mr Stasi met the Inspector-General of Detention Facilities during a visit to his prison. On the inspectors recommendation he was placed on suicide watch. As a result, the prison doctor issued a certificate to the effect that the applicants state of health warranted his immediate segregation. He was placed in a segregation unit from 29 September 2008 onwards until his release on 18 October 2008. On the day of his release he was admitted to the psychiatric hospital of Saint-Cyr au Mont dOr, when he remained until 14 January 2009. In its 23 October 2008 issue, the newspaper Libration published an article about Mr Stasi, reporting the rapes, assaults and bullying to which he had been subjected during his two periods of imprisonment. After the article was published, the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Lyons Court of Appeal ordered a preliminary police investigation. In the light of the results of that investigation the public prosecutor decided to call for the opening of a judicial investigation into acts of rape and assault committed during the applicants first period of imprisonment. That judicial investigation is currently pending. On 24 October 2008 the public prosecutor of Villefranche-sur-Sane entrusted the local sret dpartementale branch of the police force with the task of investigating the assaults allegedly committed during Mr Stasis second period of imprisonment. The investigators questioned the deputy governor of the prison, the successive building supervisors, the head warder and M. P., with whom the applicant had shared a cell. An investigation report was drawn up on 25 May 2009.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) Mr Stasi alleged that he had been the victim of ill-treatment by other inmates during his two periods of imprisonment, in particular because of his homosexuality, and he alleged that the authorities had not taken the necessary measures to ensure his protection. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 June 2007. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows: Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), PRESIDENT, Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Botjan M. Zupani (Slovenia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefvre (Monaco), Angelika Nuberger (Germany), JUDGES,

and also Claudia Westerdiek, SECTION REGISTRAR.

Decision of the Court

Article 3
The question whether the applicant was subjected to acts of violence during his imprisonment The Court reiterated that the threshold of seriousness had to be assessed in relation to the particular case. It pointed out that allegations of ill-treatment had to be supported by proof, which might follow from the co-existence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences. The Court found that the applicants allegation that his fellow inmate M.P. had forced him to wear a pink star was not supported by any proof and that it could not therefore be regarded as established. As to Mr Stasis other allegations, the Court noted that he had produced a number of medical certificates concerning the various incidents complained of. It thus found it established that while in prison he had been subjected to acts of violence that were serious enough for the facts in question to be classified as inhuman and degrading treatment. The question whether the prison authorities took appropriate measures The Court observed that on his arrival at Villefranche-sur-Sane Prison the applicant had mentioned his homosexuality and reported the acts of violence against him during his first period of imprisonment. He had thus been placed in a corridor reserved for vulnerable inmates. As regards the most serious facts complained of, which had allegedly occurred when he was sharing a cell with M. P, the Court observed that he had never complained of them to the prison authorities and in particular to the building supervisors who had received him, and that he had not forwarded the medical certificate issued to him. In view of the position of his injuries, the Court found that the prison authorities could not have been aware of the acts of violence committed against him. Concerning the incident of 6 November 2007, when according to the applicant he had been pushed down the stairs by a fellow inmate, resulting in bruising on his right leg, it did not appear from the file that he had reported this to the prison authorities. However, he had informed them of the incident of 31 January 2008 in which an inmate had stubbed a cigarette under his left eye, but the enquiries made in order to identify the assailant had been unsuccessful because of the applicants failure to cooperate. The Court noted that Mr Stasi had then been transferred to another cell, that he had been allowed to take a shower alone at a different time to other inmates and that he was systematically accompanied by a warder when he moved around. As regards his allegation that he had been beaten in the shower block, no culprit had been identified. Lastly, the Court noted that the prison authorities had taken the appropriate measures both when the applicant was on hunger strike and when he tried to commit suicide. On the recommendation of the Inspector-General of Detention Facilities he had been seen by a doctor and placed in a segregation unit until his release.

The Court found that, in the circumstances of the case, and taking into account the facts that had been brought to their attention, the authorities had taken all the measures that could reasonably be expected of them to protect the applicant from physical harm. The question of effective penal legislation The Court observed that French criminal law punished assaults causing bodily harm such as those complained of by Mr Stasi: rape was punishable by fifteen years imprisonment, extended to twenty years when committed on account of the victims sexual orientation; acts of violence were punishable by a prison sentence of between three and five years and a fine whose amount varied depending on the circumstances of the case. The Court observed that, as regards the rape and assaults complained of by the applicant during his first period of imprisonment, a preliminary police investigation had been conducted and a judicial investigation in respect of rape and assault was now pending. As regards the acts of violence that had occurred during the applicants second period of imprisonment, the Court observed that they had also given rise to a preliminary police investigation, following which Mr Stasi could have filed a criminal complaint but had not done so. The Court found no reason to consider that such a complaint would not have had a reasonable prospect of success. The Court thus arrived at the conclusion that domestic law provided the applicant with effective and sufficient protection against physical harm. The Court held that, having regard to the facts of the case, there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Other complaints
In the light of the conclusions thus reached, the Court found that it did not need to examine separately the applicants other complaints.

Separate opinion
Judges Spielmann and Nussberger expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment. The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Courts press releases, please subscribe to the Courts RSS feeds. Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Frdric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.